"Do you think that Camper and Cunningham have the potential to keep improving if given NHL ice time? A real shot? They'll have to be better than they are now to have NHL careers, but can they be enough better that it's worth giving them 20 games or 40 to prove it? 'Cause if the answer in your gut in "no", you probably never see them on a list of top prospects."

Cunningham, for a 4th rounder, has gone from 20 goals his 1st full year to 25 the next year in Providence. Marchand never topped 18 in the AHL but he got his shot. Having seen both in the AHL, I wouldn't say Marchand outperformed Cunningham in the least at the AHL level.

Back to...what is PC and Julien's AHL offensive output barometer ?

I think that's my point above, San. Doesn't matter what they do from an AHL production standpoint if the read on them in terms of potential is AHL top six with a wild outside shot to be a serviceable fill-in. Basically, if they think either guy is just Chris Bourque with a less famous name, well, once-bitten. Both come to the organization with big strikes against them in terms of their perceived potential (everyone passed on them for years), so they have to prove they have more potential than AHL top six. To prove that, they have to show it in the AHL, and while both can be benchmarked against Marchand's production, they haven't killed it when compared to the average small scorer in the AHL. Marchand wasn't given a shot on production alone. To really prove it when you don't have pedigree (i.e. WJHC appearances, Superseries), even 3rd rounder pedigree (in his draft year - different than when he's 20), you have to exceed the AHL competition.

My guess is Luedeke is looking at these guys as not really having potential. I hope they prove him wrong. Be great to see Cunningham push for that third line spot.

Oh I expected to disagree with Ludeke and others on who should be were on the list. Kirk is getting hammered on HFboards. I wasn't disagreeing with you on the list Book, but to my favorite subject "prospects not getting a proper shot".

I mine as well be the Libertarian yelling at a wall about the FED with my opinion of PCs choices as who gets a shot at the the 3rd line or Thorntons replacement.

I think that's my point above, San. Doesn't matter what they do from an AHL production standpoint if the read on them in terms of potential is AHL top six with a wild outside shot to be a serviceable fill-in. Basically, if they think either guy is just Chris Bourque with a less famous name, well, once-bitten. Both come to the organization with big strikes against them in terms of their perceived potential (everyone passed on them for years), so they have to prove they have more potential than AHL top six. To prove that, they have to show it in the AHL, and while both can be benchmarked against Marchand's production, they haven't killed it when compared to the average small scorer in the AHL. Marchand wasn't given a shot on production alone. To really prove it when you don't have pedigree (i.e. WJHC appearances, Superseries), even 3rd rounder pedigree (in his draft year - different than when he's 20), you have to exceed the AHL competition.

My guess is Luedeke is looking at these guys as not really having potential. I hope they prove him wrong. Be great to see Cunningham push for that third line spot.

I understand, and agree with, all of the skepticism of AHL guys who have had some success there, but seem to be a gear short of really having NHL talent. The odds are certainly against Camper, Cunningham, Trotman, Florek, etc. because they haven't shown much to say they are better than the AHL level after having time to adjust to the league.

But you're just focusing on the long odds of your more seasoned AHL players. My point is that the odds are surely even greater for small, high-school kids, taken in the 3rd round. If we're talking about making the Bruins and being a regular roster player (any line), I think that a Marchand-like jump from AHL to NHL for someone like Cunningham/Camper is more likely than the jump from Malden Catholic to the Bruins over 5 years.

You know the AHL guy by now. You know he isn't a phenom, but you also know he can play the system and handle big boy hockey. I say if he's still under 25 and can be a leading scorer in Providence, he should still be considered a "prospect". The Fitzgeralds and Cehlariks are the 'mystery box'. More sexy and interesting than your AHL top six for sure, but statistically they will be lucky to ever get where Cunningham and Camper already are. If I am fielding a team and can only include 15 prospects from the farm system, I'd favor a guy who's proven he can do well in the AHL at #14 and #15, over a 3rd round pick high-school kid who hasn't even played college or junior yet.

And I don't think Luedeke should be getting hammered on the boards at all. This whole exercise is a huge guessing game, and I think that guy does his research quite well. I'm only suggesting that some of your less sexy, but more mature, prospects should still be slated in between 10-15. If Ryan Fitzgerald has a 40 point season as a freshman at BC, then he might start to nudge guys that Camper out of the picture (if marked improvement isn't seen in Providence). But for now, Fitzgerald has shown that he's 5'9 and is really good in the Massachusetts High School Catholic League and 2nd tier junior.

Fletch, I think we're talking about two different things. I'd calll what you're describing as a measure of probability rather than potential. If it were a question of picking a team tomorrow, you probably pick AHL guys because there's a good chance you'll know what you can get from them. If you're picking for the future, you might pick more guys like Fitzgerald precisely because you don't know how high his ceiling will be - if he grows three inches at 19 and puts on 20 pounds, and still has great stick skills and hockey sense and feet - suddenly it seems more probable that he can use those skills at the NHL level. Camper and Cunningham are only going to grow at the waistline. There isn't likely much room for their physical tools to increase, so they are what they are.

As you say, there's zero at stake in Luedeke's rankings, so who really cares? But I think the way of thinking about prospects that you describe is teh exception. The romance of the next big thing will always crowd out an appreciation of the Nate Thompsons and Matt Hendrickses or even the Johnny Boychuks who look like they might be AHL ceiling players but who then get to prove they have more in the tank than you might have thought.

Fletch, I think we're talking about two different things. I'd calll what you're describing as a measure of probability rather than potential.

Not really. At least, I don't think so. I am talking about the potential to become a roster player on the Bruins, not so much the potential to become a star (which is so unlikely that a list of 15 guys seems silly). We can guess at star potential by ranking the top 5 anyhow. Surely potential and probability overlap here, but on a list of 15 prospects you could maybe hope that 5 will become regular roster players and 10 will fail to do that. So I think that the measure of one's potential has to start with whether they seem to have a realistic shot at making the pros or not. Because so few do, I think that the guys who are a lot closer should be considered to have higher potential.

To fall back again on the comparison of Carter Camper to Ryan Fitzgerald, neither seem to have had an overwhelming pedigree in terms of early hype. If Fitzgerald has a 40 point season as a freshmen at BC he will only be matching Camper's college success. Camper played in a better junior league at the same age, with better stats. Then he was dominant in college. Perhaps the biggest hurdle for 5'9 college players is making the adjustment to the pros. Camper has adjusted to the AHL just fine.

Truth be told, I don't think either guy will be a roster player in the NHL (odds are certainly against it), but Camper is very close, Fitzgerald isn't. If the argument is that Fitzgerald is a better prospect than Cunningham or Camper because he has higher potential, what is that conclusion based on? Even if I agree that potential is more important than probability, I disagree that a 5'9 kid from tier 2 junior, who's never played a college/major junior game, has higher potential. I think Camper/Cunningham win on both probability and potential.

I also agree that this means nothing and who really cares...but its summer...so I guess I'm bored enough to quibble over spots #12-#15 on a meaningless list of teenage hockey prospects.

I see what you mean, Fletch (and SanDog), and yeah, that's one way to look at it. But if you're doing an ordinal ranking of prospects, do you rank a guy you think might be a fourth line roster player next year ahead of a guy who might be your starting goalie in four? A guy who might replace Chris Kelly this year over a guy who is only being kept in the minors by the fact that the Bruins have a solid top 6 and he needs an offensive role to succeed?

I tend to think these lists play better as expressions of value to the organization - which players are other teams going to covet in trades, and which players does the organization most need to see develop to their full potential to help the big club, not just make the roster as a serviceable part, but also not necessarily star. (Stars no longer spend much time in the AHL unless they take a long time to develop). Can the team sell "potential" more than AHL performance? Absolutely! Though as I add the exclamation point it occurs to me that that might be changing. See: Fraser, Morrow, Smith, and the Bruins' offer to Calgary of Bartkowski and Khokhlachev.

Like I said above, the lists project how much time and opportunity a player has to grow physically and develop professionally relative to the age and performance of the other players under review. Fitzgerald has 7 years on Camper. He's 18 so he could be 6'0" next year for all we know. He'll almost certainly put on muscle as he matures. In that time, he could flame out, decide he likes to get high, and disappear. Or he could grow steadily so that, when he leaves college in four years, he's a solid all-around player with offensive up-side. List err on the side of growth, not the law of averages.

Lane MacDermid has job with the Stars but his worth to the franchise isn't as high as their top rated Dman prospect. That propspect may never play more than 25 games in the NHL but for 3 years he was in the top 3 of the organizations prospects list(s). That makes sense.

Isla - If KoKo hadn't played in the OHL, no matter what his stats were in Russia, and this was his 1st year with Providence...you are correct he doesn't make Luedeke's top 10 of Bs prospects.

Lane MacDermid has job with the Stars but his worth to the franchise isn't as high as their top rated Dman prospect. That propspect may never play more than 25 games in the NHL but for 3 years he was in the top 3 of the organizations prospects list(s). That makes sense.

I does in terms of replacement value. That's the only one of the new stats that, in theory, I think has some merit: value over replacement player (VoRP), but I guess the simler way to think about it is how far up the depth chart a guy has the potential to land. Lane MacDermid is a fourth liner. He could probably be replaced by a host of other players. Providence doesn't seem to have missed him. Boston didn't seem to see an opportunity for him even though they had a complete meltdown on the third line last year. Compare that to a guy like Jamie Oleksiak (and for the sake of argument, dial it back to the draft year because Dallas doesn't have another guy who illustrates the point very well...). Dallas's #1 D prospect has the size, agility, and stick skills to be a physical two-way defenseman, more of a shutdown guy than a points producer though he has a bit of that skill-set, too (Chowdah got to see a lot of him in when he was Doug Hamilton's D partner). He could be a top two or a top-end #3 defenseman in the NHL for a very long time. Those are hard to find and really hard to replace, especially when they're 242lbs at 20 and still agile (not Douglas Murray...). So which guy is more valuable? If MacDermid doesn't get injured for Dallas, do they make the playoffs? Miss them by 5 instead of 7 points? Now how much better could they be if instead of a top four of Goligoski, Robidas, Daley, and Brendan Dillon (an undrafted rookie last year), they had a big, talented genuine #2 D in there (projected potential)? They immediately are "harder to play against" just on size. Robidas, Dayley and Goligoski are all sub-6'. They aren't that much bigger than Torey Krug - all three of them. At least Dayley has some sand in his pants, but the others two are also between 180-190.

I'm assuming that if Dallas could have upgraded this D, they would have. They couldn't for the right price. That, to me, makes Oleksiak seem way more valuable than MacDermid. Oh, and they got MacDermid as a throw in for a guy they signed as a UFA, so he also cost them zilch.